If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Summary
Democrats, from President Barack Obama on down, are trying to turn an evidence-free allegation into a major campaign theme, claiming that foreign corporations are "stealing our democracy" with secret, illegal contributions funneled through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It’s a claim with little basis in fact.

The Democratic National Committee released a TV ad over the weekend claiming: "It appears they’ve even taken secret foreign money to influence our elections."

President Obama said last week that "one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign sources."

The liberal group MoveOn.org is claiming, without any qualification, that "[f]oreign corporations are funding some of the $75 million the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending to defeat Democrats."

The chamber says it does receive money from foreign sources, but that it amounts to only a small fraction of the chamber’s $200 million budget. The chamber says none of the foreign money is used in its ads, and no evidence has been produced to show otherwise. Federal Election Commission opinions state that organizations taking in foreign money may make political donations legally, so long as they have "a reasonable accounting method" to keep foreign money separate and have enough money from U.S. sources to cover the donations.

Analysis
As we reported last week in an Ask FactCheck item on this subject, the claim that money from foreign corporations is funding Chamber of Commerce attack ads originated with a Democratic-leaning organization headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton. That report noted that the chamber took in foreign dues (without reporting the amount) and then said that the chamber is "likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law" against foreign spending in U.S. elections. The word "likely" made clear the author was engaging in speculation, which the chamber flatly denied. Tita Freeman, the chamber’s vice president of communications and strategy, told us that money the chamber takes in from foreign corporations "is not used for political ads."

Now others have challenged the claim. The New York Times reported:

New York Times, Oct. 8: [T]here is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.

In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance.

The Times reported, for example, that U.S. subsidiaries of corporations based overseas have set up more than 160 political action committees. The Federal Election Commission states that this is perfectly legal so long as U.S. residents make the decisions and provide all the funds. The Times also noted that groups such as the AFL-CIO and the Sierra Club also have international affiliations. The AFL-CIO has pledged to spend $53 million on the midterm elections, mainly supporting Democrats.

Nevertheless, the Democratic National Committee repeated the foreign-money claim in an ad it released to weekend news shows. It was played on CBS’ "Face the Nation."

On "Face the Nation," CBS’ Bob Schieffer noted that the Times had quoted the chamber’s chief lobbyist as saying that the chamber got less than $100,000 from foreign affiliates, and Schieffer challenged White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod:

CBS’ Schieffer, Oct. 10: But this part about foreign money, that appears to be peanuts, Mister Axelrod, I mean, do you have any evidence that it’s anything other than peanuts?

Axelrod: Well, do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?

Axelrod said "the core of the problem" is that the chamber won’t identify the sources of money it is using to fund its ads, except to say that it’s not from foreign sources. It’s true that the chamber won’t release donors — there’s no legal requirement for it to do so — and also won’t discuss the specific accounting methods it uses to keep foreign money separate.

As we reported last week, however, any "reasonable accounting method" will do, according to the governing advisory opinion issued by the Federal Election Commission.

The FEC, in AO 1992-16, allowed the wholly owned U.S. subsidiary of a Japanese company to make corporate donations to state and local candidates in Hawaii, provided that the U.S. company could show that it had enough funds from its domestic operations to cover the donations.

FEC, AO 1992-16: The [U.S.] subsidiary must be able to demonstrate through a reasonable accounting method that it has sufficient funds in its account, other than funds given or loaned by its foreign national parent, from which the contribution is made.

The FEC reaffirmed that position as recently as 2006, in another advisory opinion stating that domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations may donate to state and local elections. That was AO 2006-15, which ruled that two U.S. subsidiaries of a Canadian energy company "may make corporate donations and disbursements in connection with State and local elections to the extent permitted by State and local law," provided that no foreign nationals decide where the money is given and all funds come from U.S. sources.

The amount of foreign money the chamber takes in is actually somewhat more than $100,000 — though the chamber won’t say how much more. The chamber’s vice president of communications, Tita Freeman, told us that the chamber gets about $100,000 per year through American Chambers of Commerce overseas. That’s the $100,000 that the chief lobbyist was referring to in the Times story, another chamber official confirmed with us. In addition, Freeman said the chamber also receives membership dues directly from foreign corporations, though she would not say how much.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Nevertheless, some Democrats are taking the position that the Chamber of Commerce is guilty of using foreign contributions until proven innocent. MoveOn.org is using this claim in a fundraising appeal, both in e-mail messages and on its website:

MoveOn.org website: Foreign corporations are funding some of the $75 million the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending to defeat Democrats this election cycle. Ask the Justice Department to investigate.

Update, Oct. 12: In addition, MoveOn.org Political Action attacked Republican Rep. Mark Kirk, who is running for an Illinois Senate seat, with an ad saying that the chamber was helping "Republicans like Mark Kirk" and getting money from corporations in "countries like China, Russia and India, the same companies that threaten American jobs."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I would like to have the Department of Justice investigate David Axelrod on charges that he molests livestock in a degrading (for the livestock) manner and that he has sired a number of half-goat/half-Democrat children.

How much money did the O Blah Blah campaign rake in from foreign sources? Oh, never mind, that FACT isn't worth investigating.

Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.C. S. LewisDo not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:Ayn Rand

True. So what you do is give the school staff the power to stop whatever happens. If it's verbal teasing, you give them the power to tell the kids to stop it. If it's rock throwing, you give them the...